方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 定性证据综合方法× | 可信度标准在定性研究中的应用× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 质性研究 | 质性研究 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1988 | 1985 |
| 提出者≠ | George Noblit and Dwight Hare | Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba |
| 类型≠ | Method | Framework |
| 开创性文献≠ | Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-0803931725 | Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-0803924314 |
| 别名≠ | qualitative meta-synthesis, meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis, systematic review of qualitative studies | trustworthiness criteria, credibility, dependability, confirmability |
| 相关 | 4 | 4 |
| 摘要≠ | Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is a systematic method for combining and interpreting findings from multiple qualitative research studies to generate higher-level understanding and theory. Different approaches—meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis, meta-narrative review, critical interpretive synthesis—each have distinct philosophical underpinnings and analytical procedures. Introduced by Noblit and Hare (1988) with meta-ethnography, qualitative synthesis has evolved alongside systematic reviews of quantitative research. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numerical effect sizes, qualitative synthesis integrates concepts, themes, and interpretations from primary studies, identifying patterns, conflicts, and emergent theory. QES is increasingly used in health research, social sciences, and education to understand complex phenomena, translate research into practice, and identify gaps in evidence. | Trustworthiness is a framework for evaluating the quality and rigor of qualitative research, developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) as an alternative to quantitative criteria (internal validity, external validity, reliability, objectivity). The framework comprises five criteria: credibility (findings are accurate and grounded in data), transferability (findings apply to other contexts), dependability (findings are consistent and defensible), confirmability (findings reflect the data and participants' perspectives, not researcher bias), and authenticity (research reflects diverse viewpoints and promotes understanding). This framework has become standard for assessing qualitative research across disciplines and guides researchers in designing and reporting rigorous qualitative studies. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|